
Marshaling McLuhan for Media Theory
Hailed in recent years as a prophet of the Internet and as the patron saint of Wired magazine, Marshall McLuhan’s style and substance are evident in the interdisciplinary work of Genosko, Logan, and Levy. Despite this influence, a common and justifiable perception exists in North America that McLuhan’s contributions remain outside of mainstream academic research and scholarship. Affirmations of McLuhan’s importance are frequently qualified by reservations about aspects of his life and work. He is more readily remembered as a punner and prognosticator, a maven of Madison Avenue, a cameo in Annie Hall, or “A Part of Our [Canadian] Heritage,”1 than as a rigorous researcher. The sentiments of Joshua Meyrowitz, a self-confessed “McLuhanite” (“Morphing McLuhan”), are typical: “McLuhan’s ‘findings’ are in an unusual form and they are, therefore, not easily integrated into other theoretical research frames. [His] observations have a direct, declaratory, and conclusive tone that makes them easy to accept fully or reject fully, but difficult to apply or explore” (No Sense of Place 21). Meyrowitz himself has suggested a number of ways for programmatically “Marshalling McLuhan” for the twenty-first century, such as [End Page 5] combining “McLuhanism” with aspects of Marx, Goffman, or Chomsky. Nevertheless, these suggestions have yet to be taken up.
However, there is a context where McLuhan’s insights have recently been marshalled to good effect. There is a cultural milieu in which his puns are all but excised—and his “direct, declaratory, and conclusive tone” tempered—via a language less inclined to polysemy, indirection, and euphemism than English. There is a setting in which he appears as a man without a popular past and in which his dalliances with Hollywood and Madison Avenue are largely unknown. It is a context where, in the midst of the doctrinaire 1960s, he was pronounced dead on arrival and in which he has subsequently experienced a resurrection more miraculous than in dot-com America. Perhaps improbably, this place is the heart of the Eurozone: Germany, Austria, and, to a lesser extent, Switzerland.
In Germany alone, over fifty media studies departments have recently appeared at universities from Bielefeld to Weimar, with more to be found in Austria and German-speaking Switzerland. McLuhan is widely referenced as a Medienphilosoph, he is the subject of Fueilleton or “cultural feature” articles in newspapers (for example, Boltz), of German-language academic conferences (for example, Universität Bayreuth), and his theory of “hot” and “cool” media, as one example, is taught in all earnestness in the fine arts. He is seen as no less than “the founder and figurehead of modern media theory” (Margreiter 135): “With the thesis that media are themselves the message, and the implied transition of research interests to mediatic forms, McLuhan himself actually created the terrain for an independent science of the media (Medienwissenschaft)” (Leschke 245).
Significantly, McLuhan is generally recognized in this German scholarship not as an isolated intellectual figure but very much as part of a larger Canadian milieu. In his chapter on McLuhan in his landmark Medienphilosophie, Frank Hartmann, for example, devotes considerable attention to Innis and makes significant use of interpretations of McLuhan by Ian Angus and Arthur Kroker. Leschke and Margreiter take a similar approach, introducing Derrick de Kerkhove alongside McLuhan in their respective introductions to Medientheorie and Medienphilosophie.
German-language interpretations of McLuhan have developed a number of ways of integrating and even marshaling McLuhan’s direct and declaratory “findings” into theoretical frames prominent in continental philosophizing. In German-language accounts of the development of media theory, the Canadian, or “Toronto School,” of media theorists is generally viewed as being the first to articulate what has been called a “mediatic a priori” (Margreiter, Winkler, Winthrop-Young 394). This refers [End Page 6] to “the various ways in which media ‘always already’ make possible and condition the production and circulation of information, knowledge, and experiences in everyday life” (Klöck). Echoing the Kantian transcendental a priori (that is, the form of all possible experience), this mediatic a priori has served as the basis for numerous analyses that trace the way that the media of a given age similarly provide the form for all contemporaneous cultural possibilities and production of that era. German research has traced this a priori, for example, through the establishment of a public postal system as the condition for the possibility of eighteenth-century culture (for example, Siegert) or the typewriter as a similar mediatic a priori for literary output at the turn of the twentieth century (Kittler).
A second example of an important “mobilization” of McLuhan’s contributions takes the form of the popular interpretation of McLuhan’s Gutenberg Galaxy and Understanding Media (and Vilém Flusser’s essays) as providing a kind of mediatic Gesamtgeschichte, “metanarrative,” or a “cultural history” that can account for the broad sweep of Western history (Margreiter 145). This is an account that, like an ironic version of Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit, “for the first time … presents the entire [history] of occidental culture from the perspective of the mediatic” (Mersch 14). This particular reinterpretation of McLuhan’s work provides the basis for studies of the prehistory of modern information society (Giesecke, Sinnenwandel), cultural-comparative media histories (Giesecke, Entdeckung), and other general archaeologies and genealogies of the media (Zielinski).
McLuhan is also being marshalled in the study of education and media. Undergirded by a social psychology that has long had “mediation” as its “central fact” (Vygotsky 138), education is seen as having arrived at the end of the book as its “leit-medium.” In her School at the End of Book Culture, Janette Böhme uses the work of McLuhan, Innis, Goody, and others to articulate a “theory of transmedial school-culture,” arguing for a conception of education beyond the oppositions of orality and literacy, of digital native and immigrant, in which teachers and students alike share a common “trans-medial” capability or nomadicity (Böhme 126).
These and other developments in McLuhan’s wake occur, of course, in a global village, but the situation appears closer to the Tower of Babel than a “Pentecostal condition of universal understanding and unity” (McLuhan 81). Whatever the circumstances, it is a moment in McLuhan reception that should not pass us by. Evidence of it is available not only in German but also in texts and events connecting media work on both sides of the Atlantic (for example, Hansen and Mitchell, Heilmann, Winthrop-Young). Recognizing and leveraging this opportunity, however, will be easier with [End Page 7] less literal and deferential readings of McLuhan and with a recognition of what might be gained through his subsumption to larger theoretical assemblages, whether as sprocket, interface, or lynchpin.
Norm Friesen is Canada Research Chair in E-Learning Practices at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. He is author of Re-Thinking E-Learning Research: Foundations, Methods, and Practices and The Place of the Classroom and the Space of the Screen: Relational Pedagogy and Internet Technology, co-editor of the journals Phenomenology & Practice (www.phandpr.org) and E-Learning and Digital Media (www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/), and director of the New Media Studies Research Centre (nms.tru.ca).